The Willie McCovey statue looks over at parking Lot A, across from AT&T Park in San Francisco, Calif. on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. The Giants are proposing to build a large mixed-use community on the site, but the plans may be derailed if Prop. B, which would impose height limits on waterfront developments, is passed by voters.

Skid marks are left in parking Lot A, across from AT&T Park in San Francisco, Calif. on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. The Giants are proposing to build a large mixed-use community on the site, but the plans may be derailed if Prop. B, which would impose height limits on waterfront developments, is passed by voters.

The San Francisco Giants excel on the baseball field, but it could be argued that their political skills lately have turned minor league - and that some rookie mistakes have contributed to the near certainty the team will have to substantially downsize its development plans for a parking lot near AT&T Park.

The team mostly stayed out of the public debate about whether the Golden State Warriors should build an arena on Piers 30-32 just a half mile up the Embarcadero from their ballpark, but privately offered encouragement and agreed to provide money in the future to help the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, a coalition of neighbors and others opposed to the basketball arena, a prominent member of that group said.

The Giants, however, deny ever agreeing to fund the arena opposition or provide any other type of support.

"We didn't provide any funding," Giants spokeswoman Staci Slaughter said Tuesday. "We had concerns about the site operationally. We expressed that. The mayor said please work with us directly on these issues, and that's what we've done."

The Giants feared increased traffic congestion in an already clogged part of the city would keep fans away from their ballpark. They also had concerns about losing sponsorships and other revenue to the arena after initially hoping it would be located on nearby Pier 50 and developed in coordination with the Giants.

Momentum for Prop. B

Then some of the arena opponents - including former Mayor Art Agnos - backed Proposition B for the June 3 ballot. Widely expected to pass, it would require any new building on Port of San Francisco property that would exceed the zoned height limit to win voter approval for a height exemption.

The Giants asked Agnos and others involved in Prop. B to "carve out" an exception for their own development, but were rebuffed, three people involved in the talks said.

Now, the baseball team's proposal - which includes a tower up to 380 feet, three times the height of the Warriors' proposed arena at Piers 30-32 - will almost certainly be subject to voter approval because Prop. B is expected to pass. The current height limit on the Giants' site is, essentially, zero.

The Giants will need to change their plan to win voter support in a climate of skepticism over luxury housing and waterfront development, an atmosphere they allegedly helped foster through encouragement of the Waterfront Alliance, some observers say.

"When the frog gives the scorpion a ride across the river, he shouldn't be surprised when the scorpion stings him on the other side," said one political strategist who didn't want to be named for fear of angering the powerful baseball team.

'We were collateral damage'

The Giants insist they didn't support the arena's opponents and aren't the subject of blowback with Prop. B.

"We were explicitly told we were collateral damage," Slaughter said. "We were told it wasn't targeted at us. It was targeted at other projects."

The Waterfront Alliance, at least, has reveled in the Warriors' decision this month not to build a 125-foot-tall arena on Piers 30-32 and a luxury condo tower and hotel project across the street. The basketball team announced this month it has bought land at Mission Bay and intends to build there instead, avoiding any need to go before voters because it isn't on port property.

Rudy Nothenberg, the city's former chief administrative officer, serves as treasurer for the Waterfront Alliance. He wouldn't confirm or deny that the Giants had funded the group.

Jim Stearns, a political consultant who worked for the alliance and on Prop. B, said he was unaware of the Giants providing any money to arena opponents.

"When push came to shove, they were nowhere," Stearns said. "The irony is the Giants did what the mayor asked them to do, which was stand down and not go after the Warriors. And then they got shafted."

Agnos cites Giants contact

Agnos said the Giants promised funding for a traffic study to prove a Warriors arena on Piers 30-32 would congest the streets and whatever else the alliance deemed necessary to kill the project, but the money never came through. He added the Giants encouraged him and other opponents of the arena vociferously behind the scenes.

"They held our coats while we fought," Agnos said. "We got a lot of 'attaboys' from them. We would check in with them because we were seeking their help."

Agnos said his main contact at the Giants was Jack Bair, the team's senior vice president and general counsel. Bair referred questions to Slaughter, who denied Agnos' claims.

In November, city voters resoundingly quashed the proposed 8 Washington luxury housing development near the Ferry Building, which would have broken the height limits zoned for the site. Agnos and other opponents of 8 Washington used the momentum to qualify Prop. B for the June ballot, and from there, the relationship with the Giants soured. Some observers said the 8 Washington opponents would have pressed for Prop. B even without the arena proposal.

Agnos said Bair asked him to amend the language of Prop. B to specifically "carve out," or exempt, the Giants' development, but that was a nonstarter.

"They were very upset," Agnos said. "They would have rather done it gliding under the radar, which is what they were doing until Prop. B cast a net that caught them."

The Giants have been working for years to build a new neighborhood on what is now the main parking lot for AT&T Park, often referred to as Lot A.

Port officials, reliant on leases and development projects for revenue, have been keen to develop that site for more than two decades. The 16-acre Mission Rock site is believed to be the most valuable undeveloped parcel in the port's portfolio.

The land, technically known as Seawall Lot 337, would be leased to the Giants for up to 75 years, along with the adjoining Pier 48, with a 66-year lease.

Combined, they make a 27-acre development with 10 new commercial and residential buildings holding 650 to 1,000 units of rental housing, plus office and retail. In the current plan, two of those towers could rise above 300 feet, with another going up to 280 feet.

The Giants' plan also calls for a 5-acre park, a public plaza and the rehabilitation of historic Pier 48, which Anchor Brewing Co. has already agreed to expand into.

The Giants are involved in the development for several reasons, including to have a say in what gets built next to their ballpark, but also to broaden their revenue base to fund expanding payroll and upgrades to the park, which they built almost entirely with private funds.

The team bankrolled a failed legal challenge to Prop. B that could be revived after the election.

The proposition remains on the ballot with little public opposition so far.

The Giants, fresh off World Series championships in 2010 and 2012, are beloved at City Hall and by city residents at large. They worked closely with the city and community groups to develop AT&T Park and won voter approval for it at the ballot box.

'Trump-style planning'

Agnos and others say they will fight the Giants' proposed development if it isn't significantly changed, just like they successfully killed 8 Washington and the Warriors' waterfront arena.

"We all love the Giants, and we want them to succeed," the former mayor said. "But they are ignoring their successful history and reverting to Donald Trump-style planning. I'm hoping the Giants come to their senses. So far it has not been promising."

The Giants say their project is evolving and will be "very responsive to neighborhood concerns, just as we always have been," Slaughter said. "For (Agnos) to try to equate this to luxury condos when we're trying to build rental housing in a city that desperately needs it, it's offensive."